Introducing Android 9 Pie • Hacker News Board

Re: Introducing Android 9 Pie

#141

Post by TeMPOraL » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 8:05 PM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #115

TeMPOraL wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of this experience next time someone tries to convince you that customers in this market get to "vote with their wallets".

They do. Customers voted overwhelmingly ‘we don’t care’ so the headphone jack didn’t return.

Did they? Or did they just express they care more about staying in Apple ecosystem than the headphone jack?

This is my point: there isn't really a way to express a preference for something minor. Smartphone market is mostly "take it or leave it".

Re: Introducing Android 9 Pie

#142

Post by zinckiwi » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 8:07 PM UTC

My feature wish list: 1) working Smart Lock Trusted Places

Re: Introducing Android 9 Pie

#143

Post by creatornator » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 8:08 PM UTC

DennisAleynikov wrote: post #108

confounded wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great stuff. However, while I'm happy that they're limiting third-party access to this data, given Google's business model, I still wouldn't trust them with it.

You're right Google no longer has the trust it used to enjoy. So many apps have been uploading entire call logs and it's really absurd this was so easiy accessible to all apps.

Android may have always been available at no cost, but it was never free. Always assume if you are given a service gratis, that _you_ are the product being sold. This doesn't just apply to Android, but to gmail, Drive, Docs, etc.

Re: Introducing Android 9 Pie

#144

Post by ptx » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 8:09 PM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #35

EpicBlackCrayon wrote: post #30

Did anyone see these privacy changes? https://developer.android.com/about/versions/p/android-9.0-c... * Limited access to sensors in background * Restricted access to call logs * Restricted access to phone numbers * Restricted access to Wi-Fi location and connection information * Information removed from Wi-Fi service methods * Telephony information now relies on device location setting

These are awesome. Android is slowly catching up with iOS in this regard.

They are both slowly catching up to Java ME[1] where all of this worked perfectly well, except for the silly decision to disable the "always allow" option for non-trusted apps.

If they had just let the users (rather than Verisign) decide for themselves which apps they trusted, so that every app wouldn't have to pop up i confirmation dialog every time it wanted a network connection, I would be much happier with what we had then than with Android's model.

[1] https://www.wosign.com/support/resources/MIDP_2_0_Tutorial_O...

Re: Introducing Android 9 Pie

#145

Post by DennisAleynikov » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 8:11 PM UTC

creatornator wrote: post #143

DennisAleynikov wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right Google no longer has the trust it used to enjoy. So many apps have been uploading entire call logs and it's really absurd this was so easiy accessible to all apps.

Android may have always been available at no cost, but it was never free. Always assume if you are given a service gratis, that _you_ are the product being sold. This doesn't just apply to Android, but to gmail, Drive, Docs, etc.

A product only useful at the Billion User data points level. I am 100% fine participating in what's essentially the training data for all future AI products coming out of Google. It feels like a happy family of devices all working together for a more scientific future.

Re: Introducing Android 9 Pie

#146

Post by what_ever » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 8:12 PM UTC

bitsoda wrote: post #140

Feels kind of lazy going with "Pie" after having used "Key Lime Pie" in the past. Though technically not a dessert, I was rooting for "Pancake".

It was changed from KLP to Kitkat though. So Pie was never used.

Disc: Googler but nowhere close to Android.

Re: Introducing Android 9 Pie

#147

Post by what_ever » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 8:13 PM UTC

51Cards wrote: post #136

kcmp wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People loved it when Apple did it which gave everyone else the okay to go ahead and do it themselves. It allows phone manafacturers to advertise higher screen to body ratios and is really just a step in the progression towards bezelless phones. There's definitely a loud group of people who strongly dislike it but I think most people are okay with it

Just have to comment that for myself a notch would be a deal beaker for a new device. I've played with a couple devices and really think it adds no actual value while complicating the user interface. I will avoid it as long as I can.

How does it complicate the UI for you?

Re: Introducing Android 9 Pie

#148

Post by what_ever » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 8:14 PM UTC

craftyguy wrote: post #74

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might not be a bad thing. I've used Android for a while, but I'm not always clear if/when the back button will do in-app navigation vs. return me to the phone's home screen.

I've always regarded the back button as a completely random thing.

I don't work on Android but isn't that behavior defined by the Android OS and just apps doing whatever they want?

Re: Introducing Android 9 Pie

#149

Post by pleasecalllater » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 8:15 PM UTC

So to get all the privacy changes I will need to buy a new phone, as my current Samsung has 3 years now, so it won't get any updates. What a funny world.

Re: Introducing Android 9 Pie

#150

Post by scarface74 » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 8:17 PM UTC

fixermark wrote: post #39

hateful wrote: post #36

> We partnered with DeepMind on a feature called Adaptive Battery that uses machine learning to prioritize system resources for the apps the user cares about most. You know what mind I would like to control what apps get more resources? Me

Not most people though. There was a time when in MacOS, one could manually limit the amount of memory a program was launched into by setting the required and preferred memory footprint. But that kind of low-level stuff isn't something most people care about or want to do. They just want the damn thing to work.

That wasn't a feature, it was a bug. It's not that you could limit the amount of memory a program could use, you had to implement one contiguous block of memory an app could use and you had to close apps even when you had plenty of memory to get a contiguous block.

That was like Mac users who said that cooperative multitasking was better because it let games run more smoothly, while technically correct. It was like being happy that your dog pooped on your carpet because now you have free fertilizer.....